Skip to main content

Table 3 Multiple linear regression model to predict the attitudes of local people towards the community forest governance, and the state forest governance in Tehulederi District

From: Views and attitudes of local people towards community versus state forest governance in Tehulederi District, South Wollo, Ethiopia

Variables

Attitudes towards the community forest governance

Attitudes towards the state forest governance

β

t

P value

β

t

P value

Intercept

− 3.29

− 2.82

–

2.67

2.89

–

Sex (female = 1; male = 2)

0.15

1.14

0.352

− 0.14

− 1.87

0.231

Age

0.24

1.09

0.651

− 0.16

− 1.48

0.432

Levels of education

0.36

2.75**

0.002

0.32

2.96**

0.002

Family size per household

0.47

2.840**

0.002

− 0.21

− 3.08**

0.002

Annual income (ETB)

− 0.22

− 3.10**

0.001

− 0.16

− 2.72**

0.002

Livestock ownership (no = 1; yes = 3)

0.64

2.77**

0.002

− 0.07

− 3.36**

0.001

Enough grazing land (no = 1; yes = 3)

− 0.14

− 0.66

0.523

− 0.15

− 0.62

0.543

Want to keep more livestock than have at present (no = 1; yes = 3)

− 0.03

− 2.86**

0.002

− 0.06

− 3.29**

0.001

Shortage of fodder for livestock (no = 1; yes = 3)

0.16

1.19

0.244

− 0.07

− 0.49

0.665

Length of local residence in the area (years)

0.60

0.27

0.762

− 0.14

− 0.73

0.474

History of settlement in the area

0.29

0.21

0.845

0.23

0.14

0.893

Plan to stay in the area in the future (no = 1; unsure = 2; yes = 3)

0.42

2.92**

0.002

− 0.10

− 3.29**

0.001

Private land ownership (no = 1; yes = 3)

0.14

1.18

0.253

0.09

0.22

0.644

Land size (ha)

0.11

0.29

0.785

0.27

0.23

0.764

Tree planting and growing tradition (no = 1; yes = 3)

0.01

0.69

0.651

0.07

0.65

0.726

Shortage of fuelwood (no = 1; yes = 3)

0.31

2.96**

0.002

− 0.30

− 2.94**

0.002

Accessibility to forest resources (no = 1; yes = 3)

0.52

4.02**

0.0001

0.69

3.12**

0.002

Distance between the edge of the forests and the residential area of the respondents (km)

0.15

1.17

0.254

− 0.04

− 0.31

0.768

Incentives (e.g. seeds, tree seedlings, technical supports, and credits) to plant and grow trees (no = 1; yes = 3)

0.11

2.64**

0.002

0.23

3.38**

0.001

Sufficient market to sell their forest products (no = 1; yes = 3)

0.54

3.30**

0.001

− 0.33

− 1.33

0.199

Enough labour to manage trees/seedlings planted and grown by themselves (no = 1; yes = 3)

0.15

3.17**

0.001

− 0.04

− 0.31

0.768

Knowledge on the presence of traditional bylaws that restrict people and/or livestock from illegally destroying the tree seedlings planted and grown in the study site (no = 1; yes = 3)

0.27

3.30**

0.001

− 0.33

− 3.36**

0.001

  1. Minus sign indicates a negative change in attitudes. Multiple linear regression model: standardized coefficients were reported; **Significance at the 95% confidence level. Community forest governance: R2 = 0.58 (Adj. R2 = 0.47), df = 21; F = 7.934, overall P < 0.0001. State forest governance: R2 = 0.53 (Adj. R2 = 0.42), df = 21; F = 6.858, overall P < 0.0001